The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to prove the existence of local tribal or family custom permitting the adoption of a female child under ancient Hindu law, and the disputed question of the actual date and year of adoption, which was subject to determination by the Civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved and has challenged order dated 13.05.2014 passed by the Financial Commissioner, J&K, Srinagar (F.C.) in Files No. 330/FC-AP and 454/FC-AP titled Badri Nath vs. Santosh Kumari and Santosh Kumari vs. Badri Nath respectively.

2. Vide order dated 19.04.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Anantnag disposing of an application filed by respondent No. 7 herein titled Santosh Kumari vs. Badri Nath, Tehsildar, Kulgam was directed to evict unauthorized occupant and take possession on his behalf of the land falling under Khasras No. 6, 13, 14, 15, 54, 55 and 59 situated at Kharwat (‘the subject land’). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the F.C. While the F.C. was seized of the said appeal, he received a Reference from the Settlement Commissioner, J&K, Srinagar (Settlement commissioner) with the recommendation to set aside order dated 06.11.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Kulgam pertaining to the subject land. The genesis of entire dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 7 lies in the determination of a question, as to whether respondent No. 7 is an adopted daughter of the deceased Anand Ram or not. An Adoption Deed executed by Anand Ram on 19.01.1967, declaring respondent No. 7 to be her adopted daughter entitled to inherit his estate, was at the core of controversy raised before the F.C.

3. It may be noted that, vide mutation No. 15, dated 01.06.2001, the estate of Anand Ram has been attested in favour of respondent No. 7 being his sole surviving heir (adopted daughter). In terms of mutation No. 9, dated 30.10.2001, the estate of Prabawati, the wife of brother of Anand Ram, namely, Madhav Ram is devolved upon the petitioner neglecting the claim of respondent No. 7 on the ground that she had failed to produce any documentary evidence to demonstrate that she was also an adopted daughter of Prabawati. Both the aforesaid mutations were subject matter of challenge before the Settlement Commissioner who had made a Reference to the F.C. which was disposed of vide order impugned.

4. The case set up by the petitioner in this petition essentially pertains to a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 7 with respect to the subject land left behind by Anand Ram and Prabawati, the widow of Madhav Ram. The petitioner asserts his right to the subject land on the ground of being a nearest agnate entitled to claim inheritance under the principles of Hindu Law, while as, respondent No. 7 stakes her claim to the subject property being an adopted daughter of Anand Ram. To substantiate his claim that the petitioner is agnate of Anand Ram and Prabawati, he relies upon the revenue record wherein he along with others have been shown as a co-sharer with Anand Ram, Prabawati and others. It is claimed that Anand Ram died in the year, 1991 and Prabawati in the year 1998 issueless. The petitioner further claims that since respondent No. 7 had migrated to Tehsil Dooru, therefore, the last rites of Anand Ram and Prabawati were performed by him. On the other hand, the claim of respondent No. 7 is that she was adopted by Anand Ram about 08 years prior to the execution of formal deed of adoption on 19.01.1967 which adoption was not challenged by any person including the petitioner and, therefore, on the death of Anand Ram, the entire estate left behind by Anand Ram was inherited by her. It is submitted that mutation No. 15, dated 01.06.2001 was attested in favour of respondent No. 7 by the Assistant Commissioner (Rev), Kulgam. (ACR) Respondent No. 7 further claims that she was also entitled to inherit the entire estate left behind by prabawati being an adopted daughter of Anand Ram, the brother of husband of Prabawati, namely Madhav Ram. It is submitted that the petitioner, a stranger, was not (Rev), Kulgam. (ACR) Respondent No. 7 further claims that she was also entitled to Madhav Ram. It is submitted that the petitioner, a stranger, was not 30.10.2001,